Get The Point?

Woodblock

Share

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

The onus is on U.S. military personnel to build stronger ties with localsWall Street Journal, April 28, 2015

By YUKIE YOSHIKAWAMs. Yoshikawa is an adjunct fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s Reischauer Center, former fellow at the Okinawa prefectural government, and APP member

U.S.-Japanese security ties are a major theme of this week’s U.S. tour by Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, during which he and President Barack Obama have announced updated defense-alliance guidelines for the first time in two decades. Amid strong bilateral cooperation concerning joint military training, missile defense and other issues, however, the matter of U.S. military bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa remains unsettled and potentially explosive.

Especially controversial is whether the U.S. Marine Air Station at Futenma, in the densely populated city of Ginowan, will be relocated to a rural part of the island—as Washington and Tokyo agreed in 1996—or moved out of Okinawa, as the local governor and many voters demand.

During my tenure as a fellow of the Okinawa prefectural government from 2012 to 2014, I visited most of the U.S. military bases and their local city halls in Okinawa. This is the island where nearly 75% of U.S. military facilities (for exclusive use) in Japan are concentrated. I met with many local residents and members of the U.S. military and learned a great deal about U.S.-Japan relations on the ground.

To my dismay, and despite much high-level rhetoric from Washington and Tokyo about the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance, most Okinawans had very low opinions of the U.S. military. Some local government officials told me it had been several years since a U.S. military officer last visited their offices.

Few Okinawan officials had a clear understanding of the chains of command within the military institutions based on the island. Local U.S. Marine commanders may provide the prefectural government with an organization chart, I was told, but there would be no accompanying explanation of how each department within the organization functions.

Part of this stems from wariness on the part of the Americans. When one U.S. Marine commander suggested that more information be shared with the prefectural government in order to minimize the chances of miscommunication, his advisors rejected the proposal, believing that Okinawan officials would leak the information to local interest groups opposed to the presence of U.S. bases there.

This lack of communication helps create a climate of animosity, as local officials seeking clarity on military procedures are routinely stonewalled and frustrated, lending credence to their belief that the U.S. military doesn’t care about them. They, in turn, become more uncooperative toward U.S. military personnel.

The onus, however, is on the Americans. The Americans need to maintain good relations with the locals, especially given that many locals question the very existence of the bases. The base issue has always been a touchy one, driving risk-averse local bureaucrats to avoid military contact. The language barrier stands tall, while the fence surrounding the U.S. bases creates a physical divide that allows little space for interaction.

Americans have tried to build good relations with the locals and contribute to Okinawa’s quality of life—for instance, by cleaning up beaches, teaching English or organizing sporting events. But such actions don’t always succeed. Often they are viewed by locals with suspicion or cynicism.

These acts of goodwill should not be a goal but merely a starting point. I found during my interviews, with very few exceptions, that the most successful U.S. base commanders and liaison officers were those who had developed deep local relations. These officers and commanders are frequently visiting city halls and befriending ward chiefs. They also clean beaches and teach English, but they focus first on establishing friendships with the locals, sometimes going for coffee together after beach events or having dinner after language lessons.

Such relationships make it easier to establish the necessary lines of communications when potential controversies arise, such as car accidents or crimes committed by U.S. service members. The locals would inform the liaison officers and base commanders of incidents soon after they occur, helping them understand how and when to apologize, and to whom—all of which would be vital for effective damage control.

Meeting in person with local leaders and residents, therefore, is the essential first step to reducing mistrust between the U.S. military and the people of Okinawa. As one successful U.S. commander said he learned from his Okinawan interlocutors: “If I see you in person, it is difficult to hate you.”

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA17) today made the following statement about Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress:

It is shocking and shameful that Prime Minister Abe continues to evade his government’s responsibility for the systematic atrocity that was perpetrated the Japanese Imperial Army against the so-called “comfort women” during World War II, by not offering an apology during his speech today.

Today, he said Japan “must not avert our eyes” from the suffering of the Asian countries, and that he upholds his predecessors’ views. Yet, he refused to explicitly mention the "comfort women," nor their sexual enslavement. Today’s refusal to squarely face history is an insult to the spirit of the 200,000 girls and women from the Asia-Pacific who suffered during World War II. This is unacceptable.

He also said in today’s speech “In our age, we must realize the kind of world where finally women are free from human rights abuses.” I agree with him completely. But without acknowledging the sins of the past, history will repeat itself.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Abe claimed to be “deeply pained to think about the ‘comfort women’” who experienced this suffering. But, his pain is nothing compared to the 70-year-long torment of justice denied. Having waited these seven decades for an honest and humble apology, 87-year old Ms. Yong-Soo Lee traveled from Korea to be my guest in the House Gallery today. My heart breaks for Ms. Lee and her sisters, as she must now return to Korea without having received an apology from Prime Minister Abe.

Please join the U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS and Asia Policy Point for a panel discussion featuring Bataan Death March survivor Lester Tenney and documentary filmmaker Jan Thompson, who will discuss reconciliation efforts between POWs and Japan, as well as what is left to do. They will also address the idea of closure for both the victims of the war and the generations to come.

Lester Tenney, 94, was the last National Commander of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Memorial Society (ADBC-MS). He successfully convinced the Japanese government to deliver a formal apology to American POWs of Japan in 2009 and create a reconciliation program for former POWs to visit Japan. He was a tank commander from the famous Maywood, Illinois National Guard, Company B, 192nd Tank Battalion and fought in the Battle for Bataan from December 1941 to April 1942. He survived the infamous Bataan Death March, a hell ship, and slave labor mining coal for Mitsui at Fukuoka #17 Branch POW Camp in Omuta. Dr. Tenney is a professor emeritus of finance and accounting at Arizona State University. He lives with his wife in Carlsbad, California.

Jan Thompson is the Founding President of the American Defenders of Bataan & Corregidor Memorial Society (ADBC-MS). For nearly three decades, she has devoted much of her time to researching and creating works about the POW experience. Part of this work includes two documentaries: The Tragedy of Bataan, narrated by Alec Baldwin, and Never the Same: The Prisoner of War Experience. Thompson is a professor at Southern Illinois University, where she teaches documentary production. She is the daughter of Robert E. Thompson, who served as a Pharmacist’s Mate on the USS Canopus and survived the Bilibid and Mukden Prison Camps as well as three infamous hell ships: Oryoku Maru, Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Addressing the U.S. Congress on Hirohito’s birthday is an insult to Pacific War veterans The Diplomat, April 27, 2015

By Edward Jackfert, 93, a POW of Japan captured on Mindanao, The Philippines as a member of the U.S. Army Air Corps. He was twice National Commander of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s April 29 address to the U.S. Congress will come at the expense of America’s Pacific War veterans. As a former POW of Japan who endured a hellish three-and-a-half years of captivity and slave labor, I am astonished that Abe’s address falls on the birthday – a national holiday in Japan – of the man who initiated World War II, Emperor Hirohito. For me, it was a day of harsher beatings and lower bows. I am outraged that this high American honor was given to a Japanese leader who still evades his country’s war responsibilities. It has been difficult for me to watch the fading memory of Japan’s war atrocities accompanied by increasing Japanese denials of their heinous war record. A complacent U.S. Congress has been complicit. In 2011, no effort was made to remember the 70th Anniversary of Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and the American entry into WWII. This omission and others regarding the war, I understand, were the result of new House rules ending commemorative resolutions.

But Congress was not totally opposed to celebratory resolutions that year. On December 19, 2011, it marked the 70th anniversary of Winston Churchill’s December 1941 speech before Congress. Churchill, barely two weeks after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, urged Americans to pursue the war first in Europe and not in Asia.

As someone who fought in the Philippines in the first battles of WWII, I have painful reminders of Churchill’s successful Europe-first lobbying. Most Pacific veterans from the early months of the war believe that his efforts ensured that we were abandoned. We were condemned to hopeless battles with obsolete weapons and no provisions ending in death or imprisonment in Japan’s notorious POW camps.

I think that most Americans view the bombing of Pearl Harbor as a more transformative event than a speech by a foreign dignitary – even one by Churchill. Ignoring the attack on Pearl Harbor was a slap in the face to Pacific War veterans.

Previous Japanese government officials have apologized for their country’s actions before and during WWII. Abe objects to those. He believes the war was just and walked out on the parliamentary vote in 1995 for the now-standard government apology. Today, he never uses the word “apology.” Instead, he is “deeply pained” by events of the past, yet never connects them to decisions made by Japanese leaders.

Speaking to Australia’s parliament last year, Abe was neither contrite nor clear. He merely mentioned “Sandakan” and sent his “condolences towards the many souls who lost their lives.” Never mentioned was that “Sandakan” was a series of death marches in 1945 on Borneo forced upon approximately 2,400 emaciated Australian and British POWs by the Japanese. [only 6 survived]

Most important, Abe failed to identify who was responsible for this war crime against Australians. It was simply something that “happened in the past.” As a survivor, myself, of Imperial Japan’s mindless brutality and fanatical leadership, I am not satisfied with disconnected “condolences” for “the evils and horrors of history.”

I want to know what Abe learned from the past, and what steps he plans for reconciliation with Japan’s former adversaries and victims. To the American POWs of Japan, this means acknowledging our inhumane imprisonment and brutal slave labor for Japan’s corporations. It means creating a program of remembrance and education on the war.

We Pacific War veterans ask most that what we fought for not be forgotten. This is what Congress must demand of Shinzo Abe.

Imperial Japan was a brutal regime that was merciless to the people put in its care. It astonishes me that Japan’s leaders now avoid offering an apology or acts of contrition. Yet, if the U.S. Congress cannot remember this history, it is unlikely that the Japanese will want to disturb that amnesia. And if Congress does not speak for America’s veterans, it is unlikely that Japan will feel compelled to remember them as well. Prime Minister Abe will simply indulge this ignorance.

On Tuesday, April 28th and Wednesday, April 29th from 9:00am to Noon there will be demonstrations on the West side of the Capitol Building on the grassy middle area, know as Area 1 hoping to catch the attention of visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. A Comfort Woman from South Korea will be there. It is an opportunity to show that Abe’s denial of Japan’s responsibility for WWII and Imperial Japan's war crimes concerns Americans. It is not merely a problem for Korea and China.

Events Happening Elsewhere in the country related to the Comfort Women

Uemura Takashi, a former reporter of the Asahi Shimbun, is currently an adjunct lecturer at Hokusei Gakuen University in Sapporo. In 1991, while a reporter for the Asahi, he wrote two articles on Kim Hak-sun, the first “comfort woman” to come forward to tell her story (1991). Because of these two articles, Uemura has been the target of denunciations by nationalists. He has been labeled "the reporter who fabricated the 'comfort woman' issue" and denounced by nationalists as a “traitor.” Such bashing took a critical turn for the worse in 2014, to the extent that he and his family risk losing their right to a livelihood.

Monday he gives a speech at Harvard University's Kennedy School and visit the Kennedy Library. In the afternoon he flies to Washington and will visit Arlington Cemetery and the Holocaust Museum.

On Tuesday, he will hold a summit with US President Barack Obama and attend an official dinner at the White House. On Wednesday, at 11 am he will give an address to a joint meeting of Congress and then attend a reception and meet with members of Congress. In the late afternoon he will give a speech to a conference held by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and go on a gala hosted by the Japanese Embassy. On Thursday he flies to San Francisco to visit Silicon Valley and Stanford and then on to Los Angeles, leaving on Saturday.

WOMEN IN COMBAT: WHERE THEY STAND. 4/27, 12:30-5:00pm, Reception. Sponsor: Women in International Security (WIIS). Speakers: Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, (D-CA) 46th District; Congresswoman Martha McSally, (R-AZ) 2nd District; Ms. Juliet Beyler, Director of Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management for the Office of the Secretary of Defense; Major General Jacqueline Van Ovost, Vice Director of the Joint Staff for the Department of Defense; Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center; Carolyn Becraft, Former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Ellen Haring, Senior Fellow at the Women In International Security; Sue Jaenen , Manager of Human Performance for the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command; Michael Breen , Executive Director of the Truman National Security Project; Dr. Megan McKenzie, Research Supervisor at the University of Sydney; Dr. Robert Egnell Visiting Professor and Director of Teaching at Georgetown University; Major Bryan Coughlin, United States Marine Corps; Gayle Lemmon, Author and Journalist, Ashley’s War and The Dressmaker of Khair Khana.

6TH CHINA BUSINESS CONFERENCE. 4/27-4/28, 3:00pm. Sponsors: Association of Women in International Trade (WIIT), AmCham China and US Chamber of Commerce. Speakers: Ambassador Michael Froman, United States Trade Representative; Ambassador Robert Zoellick, Former President of the World Bank, US Trade Representative, and Deputy Secretary of State ; General Michael Hayden, Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Ambassador Stapleton Roy, Former US Ambassador to China; Ambassador Cui Tiankai, Chinese Ambassador to the United States.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

APP member Peter Ennis interviews for his Dispatch Japan APP member Professor Tessa Morris-Suzuki on Abe's forthcoming trip to the United States. It is likely thatthe prime minister will try to present himself to the world as being a compassionate and caring person, but at the same time avoid any notion of historical responsibility. Morris-Suzuki says

I am concerned that Abe and his advisors may be planning to use verbal games to send one message to the English speaking world and another to East Asian countries, including Japan itself. The terrible events of the Pacific War should be recalled with sincerity, honesty and directness, not with word games.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan will speak to a joint meeting of the US Congress on April 29, marking the first time Japan’s top political leader will address the full US national legislature. The speech will carry enormous symbolism; Abe will speak from the rostrum of the House of Representatives, from which Franklin Roosevelt declared war on Japan in 1941 in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of that year. The US and Japan have long been reconciled, of course, with a post-war bilateral security alliance that continues to form the bedrock of stability in East Asia. But Abe has a testy relationship with his leadership counterparts in China and South Korea, and both countries will be listening carefully to hear if and how he addresses lingering animosities about Japan’s historical role in the region.

Many analysts in Washington expect (and some have recommended) that Abe will model his upcoming address to Congress on the talk he delivered to the Australian parliament in capital-city Canberra in July of last year. Abe effectively referenced two incidents of severe mistreatment of Australian prisoners-of-war during World War II that had long been thorns-in-the-side of Japan-Australia relations. The Bataan ‘Death March’ of 1942, in which hundreds of American POWs died in Japan-occupied Philippines, conjures up similar emotions in the United States. In 2009, Japan officially apologized for that mistreatment of captured American soldiers. Japan’s prime minister at that time, Taro Aso, was under some pressure in part because his family’s lucrative coal mining business used US POWs as forced-laborers during World War II. (Aso is now Japan’s finance minister.)

Whether Abe really apologized to Australians on behalf of Japan, or merely commiserated about a shared bitter experience, remains a matter of contention. And his Canberra comments made no reference to China, Korea, or any other country in East Asia, leaving unanswered whether he really agrees with his predecessors Tomiichi Murayama and Junichiro Koizumi, who stated unambiguously in 1995 and 2005 respectively that Japan adopted a “mistaken national policy” that resulted in “aggression” and “colonial rule” in the first half of last century.

While stating that he agrees with his predecessors “on the whole,” Abe himself has never used the most important operative words from those past apologies that Chinese and Korean officials consider a litmus test of his views and intentions.

Unresolved history issues between Japan and Korea – key US allies – continue to complicate American diplomacy in East Asia, making Prime Minister Abe’s upcoming address to Congress, and his planned statement in August marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, particularly important.

To discuss Abe’s ‘Canberra Strategy,’ we turned to Tessa Morris-Suzuki, one of Australia’s top specialists on Japan. Morris-Suzuki is professor of Japanese history at Australian National University, and author of East Asia Beyond the History Wars. She is past president of the Asian Studies Association of Australia.

DISPATCH JAPAN: Was Prime Minister Abe’s “Canberra” speech last year well-received in Australia?MORRIS-SUZUKI: The prime minister’s speech made headline news and attracted some media debate at the time, but its long- term impact on Australian views of Japan appears to have been quite small. It is difficult to say whether this impact was positive or negative. A number of media, business, and political commentators praised Abe’s words of condolence for the Australian servicemen killed in World War II, but much of the discussion in letters-to-the-editor of major newspapers was critical. The event also attracted public criticism from Australia’s main veterans’ organization, the Returned and Services League. An interesting note is that much of the criticism focused on Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who replied by praising the skill and sense of honor shown by Japanese troops during the war. This was widely criticized by veterans and others, who argued that Japan’s wartime treatment of prisoners of war was not honorable.

DISPATCH JAPAN: Abe referred specifically to the Sandakan wartime events on Borneo, and the Kokoda events in Papua New Guinea. Remind readers why Sandakan and Kokoda resonate with Australians.MORRIS-SUZUKI: Abe began his speech by referring to Sandakan and Kokoda. Sandakan in Borneo is the site of a death march during which some 1,000 Australian soldiers were killed or died of starvation, disease, and exhaustion. The Kokoda track over the mountains of Papua New Guinea was the site of crucial and fierce battles between Australian and Japanese forces, in which some 600 Australian soldiers were killed.

It is worth noting that although Abe mentioned the place name Sandakan, he did not use the term “death march”. These two sites, and particularly Kokoda, have become key symbols of the sufferings of Australian soldiers during the Pacific War. Monuments to the Kokoda track exist in many parts of Australia, and some Australians still visit the track to reenact the march over its rugged terrain.

DISPATCH JAPAN: Did Australians receive Abe’s comments as an apology? He seemed to speak somewhat in the passive tense – “regretting” that terrible things happened, but not acknowledging responsibility on the part of Japan.MORRIS-SUZUKI:Most commentators noted that Abe expressed condolences but not apology. In fact, Abe’s speech presented the war, not as an event for which Japan should apologize, but rather as a part of history which Australia and Japan share. He spoke of “our fathers and grandfathers” -- both Japanese and Australian -- experiencing the events of Sandakan and Kokoda, and went on to speak of the Japanese naval officers killed in an attempted midget submarine attack on Sydney harbor. He recalled how Australia had invited the mother of one of the dead to visit Sydney for a memorial ceremony, and then quoted the words of former Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies: “Hostility to Japan must go. It is better to hope than always to remember.” The clear message was, “We all suffered similarly during the war. We should let bygones be bygones.”

DISPATCH JAPAN: Abe seemed perhaps more ready to reconcile with Australia than with China or Korea?MORRIS-SUZUKI: I look at this in strategic terms. Abe wishes as far as possible to avoid making any direct apologies or acknowledgments of wrongs committed by the Japanese military during the war. But at the same time his strategy is to deepen the military alliance with the United States and forge new and deep military and intelligence alliances with countries like Australia. In order to combine these two aims, he and his advisers choose words very carefully to try to smooth over concerns about memories of the war without directly addressing or apologizing for the events of the past.

DISPATCH JAPAN: Abe says he upholds the Murayama and Kono statements “as a whole.” To you, what does that mean?MORRIS-SUZUKI:This is a phrase devised to confuse and blur the meaning of Abe’s stance on the issues of war responsibility and apology. It is a deliberately ambiguous phrase which enables him to avoid saying whether he accepts words such as “aggression” and “apology” contained in the Murayama statement, and to avoid reconfirming the Kono statement’s acknowledgment that “comfort women” were recruited by coercion.

DISPATCH JAPAN: What do you anticipate the prime minister will say in his August 15 statement, marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in the Pacific?MORRIS-SUZUKI: I think it likely that he will use two verbal strategies in an effort to appease international (particularly US) opinion, while at the same time avoiding making a direct statement of apology about the war. First, he will express a personal sense of pain at the memory of the war. In many recent statements, including his Canberra speech, Abe has spoken of his sadness and heartache at this memory. These words present the prime minister to the world as being a compassionate and caring person, but at the same time avoid any notion of historical responsibility. The second strategy is to use the word “反省” [hansei - best translated as “reconsideration” or “self-questioning”] in his statement in Japanese, but to translate this into English as “remorse”. The word “remorse” in English has a much stronger meaning than “反省” in Japanese (and would most commonly be rendered in Japanese as 後悔 [kōkai] or 自責の念 [jiseki no nen]). In the Murayama and Koizumi statements, the word “反省” was also translated into English as “remorse”, but was followed by the words お詫びの気持ち[owabi no kimochi - a feeling of apology]. If Abe uses the word 反省 (translated as remorse) but not the word お詫び (apology), he will convey to English speaking audiences the impression that he is apologizing, but will make it clear to those who read his statement in Japanese, Korean or Chinese is that he is merely expressing 反省 and not お詫び.

DISPATCH JAPAN: How will Korea react if PM Abe omits the wording of the Murayama Statement – “aggression,” “colonial rule,” and “mistaken national policy”?MORRIS-SUZUKI: I am deeply concerned about the likely impact of Abe’s 70th anniversary statement. If he uses the verbal strategies I have mentioned, these will not only fail to ease the painful memories of many people in Korea, China and elsewhere, but also deepen misunderstandings between East Asian countries and the English-speaking world. Many Americans and others, hearing the word “remorse”, will think that Abe has issued an apology, and fail to understand why Chinese and Koreans are still dissatisfied. In short, I am concerned that Abe and his advisors may be planning to use verbal games to send one message to the English speaking world and another to East Asian countries, including Japan itself. The terrible events of the Pacific War should be recalled with sincerity, honesty and directness, not with word games.

DISPATCH JAPAN: Do you think Abe a transformational figure, leading and reflecting fundamental changes in Japan?MORRIS-SUZUKI: The Abe administration has already changed Japan in important ways through alterations to military strategy, state control of information, educational guidelines, trade and energy policy and other matters. In this sense Abe is a transformational figure; but it still too early to say whether he will succeed in carrying out the further and even more fundamental transformations, including changes to the constitution, which remain on his policy agenda.

DISPATCH JAPAN: Why does the Abe Cabinet receive high marks in public opinion polls, but low marks for its major policies?MORRIS-SUZUKI: Public opinion is still reacting to the sense of crisis and absence of leadership which followed the triple disaster of March, 2011. Many people in Japan feel a profound sense of insecurity because of the ongoing aftermath of the disaster, the continuing weakness of the Japanese economy and the rise of China. In this situation, Abe’s large and simple statements about Japan’s revival and national pride are reassuring. Many people also still pin hopes on the future effects of Abenomics, even though, after two-and-a-half years, no significant positive impact on economic fundamentals or on the lives of ordinary Japanese people has yet been seen.

DISPATCH JAPAN: Is there a thought-out, realistic national strategy underlying “revisionism,” or is it more of a romantic whim about Japan.MORRIS-SUZUKI: I believe that this is driven by emotion and ideology, not by political realism. A more realistic political strategy would positively and creatively address the concerns of China, Korea, and other Asian neighbors, since Japan’s long-term economic and security future rely on good relations with its neighbors. Revisionism is also creating deepening divisions within Japanese society itself. At a grassroots popular level, Japan has a fine history of efforts to seek reconciliation with neighboring countries and address problems of war responsibility. A more realistic national policy would build on these grassroots achievements, rather than ostracizing and marginalizing ordinary Japanese people who have worked so hard for reconciliation.

PM
01:11 Arrive at front of JR Sakurabo-Higashine Station. Soapbox speech
01:38 Depart from front of station
01:39 Arrive at station
01:47 Depart from station on Tsubasa no. 144
03:57 Arrive at JR Utsunomiya Station
03:58 Speak with Chairman of LDP Diet Affairs Committee Sato Tsutomu
04:00 Finish speaking with Mr. Sato
04:01 Depart from station
04:45 Arrive at front of JR Imaichi Station. Soapbox speech
05:09 Depart from station
06:02 Arrive at JR Utsunomiya Station
06:20 Depart from station on Nasuno no. 280
06:49 Arrive at JR Omiya Station
06:55 Depart from station on Akagi no. 10
07:00 Arrive at JR Urawa Station
07:03 Depart from station
07:04 Arrive at station’s east entrance. Soapbox speech
07:34 Depart from station
08:16 Arrive at private residence

Sunday, April 19, 2015

POLITICS OF A NUCLEAR DEAL: FORMER U.S. & IRANIAN OFFICIALS DEBATE. 4/20, 9:30-11:00am. Sponsors: US Institute of Peace, Wilson Center, Partnership for a Secure America, RAND Corporation, Center for New American Security, Stimson Center, Arms Control Association (ACA) and Ploughshares Fund. Speakers: Stephen Hadley, Chairman of the Board at the US Institute of Peace, Former National Security Advisor; Ali-Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, Former Member of Iran’s Parliament, Human Rights Advocate; Jim Slattery, Former Congressman (D-KS), Partner at Wiley Rein LLP; Howard Berman, Former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (D-CA), Senior Advisor at Covington & Burling LLP; Michael Singh, Former Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council, Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE REBALANCE. 4/20, 6:00pm. Webcast. Sponsors: Council on Foreign Relations; Lowry Institute of International Policy. Speakers: Michael Fullilove, Executive Director, Lowy Institute for International Policy; Daniel Russel, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, US Department of State.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

In July 2014, Prime Minister Abe traveled to Australia and gave a speech to the country's parliament. His words were well received and viewed as thoughtful and healing. Thus, there is a focus on Abe's speech Down Under as a model for his upcoming address to a joint meeting of Congress on April 29th, Emperor Hirohito's birthday.

Will Americans and America's Pacific war veterans be satisfied with the same sort of statement? To understand why this is problematic, we reprint and analyze the relevant sections here:

Our fathers and grandfathers lived in a time that saw Kokoda and Sandakan. How many young Australians, with bright futures to come, lost their lives? And for those who made it through the war, how much trauma did they feel even years and years later, from these painful memories?

I can find absolutely no words to say. I can only stay humble against the evils and horrors of history.

May I most humbly speak for Japan and on behalf of the Japanese people here in sending my most sincere condolences towards the many souls who lost their lives.

I can find absolutely no words to say. I can only stay humble against the evils and horrors of history.May I most humbly speak for Japan and on behalf of the Japanese people here in sending my most sincere condolences towards the many souls who lost their lives.

Many people believe that the Prime Minister used the word "remorse" in the speech. This is not true. It is not in the document.

Instead, he sends” his “condolences towards the many souls who lost their lives." It is a general expression of empathy without any hint of responsibility. Who was responsible for the dead?

Abe merely mentions “Sandakan." It dangles out there without explanation or reflection. It is associated with distant time, not tied to a series of human decisions. He does not say that “Sandakan” was a series of senseless death marches in 1945 on Borneo for approximately 2,400 Australian and British POWs. Only six Australians survived. Of those who died, most were never found.

He did not say that Sandakan was a callous, premeditated war crime perpetrated by an incompetent and fanatical leadership. He did not say that it was an atrocity perpetrated by Imperial Japan. He did not say there was any justification to march to death or murder these sick and defenseless men.

Americans should insulted if Abe mentioned the Bataan Death March in as off-handed a manner. No former POW of Japan will be satisfied to only receive a condolence for his suffering and the deaths of his buddies. They do not want a promise to do better and they certainly do not want condescending pity. They want the assurance that comes with acknowledgment of responsibility. They want to hear remorse.

Prime Minister Abe objects to his country’s past war apologies. He walked out on the vote for the 1995 war apology. He now shuns apologies and never mentions who was responsible for his country's most fatal mistakes.

Abe will squander his grandest opportunity to show that Japan has learned from 70 years of peace if he fails to say that Imperial Japan was responsible for the War. Americans want less an apology than an affirmation that what happened was wrong, very wrong.

The Japanese prime minister does the U.S. no favors by overlooking his country’s past atrocities.

By CHUNG MIN LEEProfessor of international relations at Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Studies and a nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
First appeared in the Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2015

All eyes in Asia are on Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as he prepares to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress on April 29. This year being the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, what historical message will Mr. Abe choose to deliver?

He has roughly three options: admit the horrible wrongdoings of Japan’s military regime before and during World War II; stress a kind of moral equivalence between Japan and the U.S., as Tokyo started the war by attacking Pearl Harbor but Washington ended it by dropping two atomic bombs; or highlight Japan’s postwar history as a model democracy, America’s best friend in Asia and the region’s biggest contributor to economic development.

If Mr. Abe’s previous comments and actions are a guide, he will likely choose the second and third options, which reflect the narrative that most Japanese prefer. Mr. Abe has said that Japan must never go back to its imperialist past, but he has also stressed the solemn duty of honoring Japanese soldiers killed in World War II.

Yet if Mr. Abe continues to whitewash and ignore Japan’s wartime atrocities—including sexual slavery and grotesque medical experiments on live prisoners, including Americans—then Japan will lose its claim to being a postwar beacon of democracy, human rights and dignity.

Many Americans feel uneasy, if not fatigued, by the constant Chinese and South Korean focus on history. Yes, they say, Japan made terrible mistakes during the war, but that was 70 years ago and it’s time to move on. Besides, all countries have dark chapters in their histories, and China is hardly an exception. Japan has been a responsible major power since 1945, is one of the largest contributors to the United Nations and stands with the U.S. on virtually all the important issues. South Korea’s wounds are understandable, but a fellow democracy and major U.S. ally should have the courage to look beyond historical grievances.

Such assertions miss a central point: Japan’s benign postwar record doesn’t erase what came before. The still-mighty yen can buy many things, but it can’t buy the collective memory of Asians or even Americans.

Mr. Abe’s revisionism works against U.S. strategic interests—including President Obama’s signature pivot to Asia—because a Japan that won’t come to terms with history undermines regional reconciliation and provides China with its best excuse for growing its military. A Japan that denies history also raises China’s international profile and feeds a perception that China’s official voice is in harmony with the rest of Asia’s.

Amid China’s rise, ensuring security and stability in Asia isn’t just about maintaining effective deterrence and defense. It also requires strengthening Asian democracies and building up soft-power assets such as respect for human rights, civil liberties and historical reconciliation.

No matter how much Japan contributes to the U.S.-Japan alliance or overseas development assistance, a Japanese leader who is moved to tears by a hit movie on the sacrifices made by kamikaze pilots in World War II, or who disputes that 300,000 innocents were butchered in the 1937 Nanjing Massacre, can never win the hearts and minds of fellow Asians.

Mr. Abe may believe that winning hearts and minds isn’t nearly as important as turning Japan into an “unsinkable aircraft carrier.” But if that’s the exclusive message he wishes to convey to the U.S. Congress, he will forsake a golden opportunity to showcase Japan as an indispensable U.S. ally, a responsible counterpart vis-à-vis China and, most importantly, a friend to the rest of Asia.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Womenomics for Japan: is the Abe policy for gendered employment viable in an era of precarity?

By Helen Macnaughtan, Senior Lecturer in International Business and Management (Japan) at SOAS, University of London and Co-editor of Japan Forum, the official journal of the British Association for Japanese Studies (BAJS)

Summary: Womenomics is a theory that advocates the empowerment of women, arguing that enabling women to have access to equal participation in an economy and society will result in economic benefits and social progress. The need for Japan to implement womenomics was first advocated by Kathy Matsui in 1999, and since 2013 Prime Minister Abe’s government has pledged to promote womenomics as policy.1 In theory, womenomics is a viable policy for Japan. I argue, however, that gendered norms and practices in Japanese society act as a strong impediment to its realization. In addition, the approach being taken by the Abe government is flawed by underlying gender bias. This article outlines the historical context of current womenomics policy, provides a critical analysis of implementation strategies discussing progress and socio-structural obstacles, and concludes with an assessment of the viability of womenomics for Japan.

Prime Minister of Japan Abe Shinzō has pledged to create a society in which “all women can shine” (subete no josei ga kagayaku nihon e). Writing in the Wall Street Journal in September 2013, Abe acknowledged that womenomics was not a new concept, but that his government’s commitment to pursuing it in Japan was new.2 Why is the government now adopting womenomics? There are arguably two key reasons. First, Japan has come under increasing international criticism because of the low level of gender equality in society, including high profile comments such as that from Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF.3 Since 1999, Kathy Matsui of Goldman Sachs Japan has argued that a key solution for Japan’s economic woes is her brand of womenomics, advocating breaking down structural impediments in the labour market and raising female labour participation to that of men in order to generate GDP growth. At the very least, Abe wants to appear to be responding to this international criticism and has latched onto the concept of womenomics, a term which fits neatly into his Abenomics policy. Second, on the domestic front, Japan is dealing with well-known demographic and economic challenges, including a declining and aging population, low birth rate, emerging labour shortage, low GDP growth rates, deflation and stagnating levels of domestic investment and consumer spending. All of this has combined to prompt the government to acknowledge that Japanese women have long been underutilised in the economy and must now be called upon to help ‘save Japan’.

Since taking office in December 2012, Abe has been pushing his agenda of economic growth and reform known as Abenomics. With the headline that “Japan is Back”, Abenomics is focused on the so-called “three arrows” of (1) fiscal stimulus (2) monetary easing and (3) structural reform. As part of the third arrow, Abe has been citing ‘womenomics’ with a promise to enable Japanese women to ‘shine’, better contribute to the economy and reach leadership positions. But in precisely what way and how are women to ‘shine’? Is Abenomics a program, a set of policies, or simply a somewhat condescending statement that women have not been ‘shining’ in Japan.4 Based on Matsui’s central argument about enabling women to raise their current levels of participation in the paid economy, the Abe government claims that it is advancing a new approach to women’s employment. However, I will demonstrate that, far from a new approach, it remains wedded to much that has been attempted previously and with scant results. In the early 1960s, Japanese women were perceived as essential to meet increased demand for labour under high levels of economic growth. Given official reluctance to seek additional labour via immigration, women were encouraged into the workplace. Specifically, they were encouraged to work for a few years before marriage as regular workers and then again after several years of child-rearing as non-regular workers.5

The result was a system of highly gendered employment that continues today. Under the guise of womenomics, many aspects of this system are being reinforced and Japanese women are again being asked to fill a gap. This time there is both a supply and demand gap for them to help re-stimulate economic growth. This is due in part to the long underutilisation of female labour but is also the product of a growing labour shortage under depopulation. The government once again wants more women to work as a means to fill a perceived employment gap and support a core male labour force. I show that Abe’s brand of womenomics has little intention to question the gendered status quo of an employment system that allocates productive roles to men and reproductive roles to women. On the surface there is the promise of delivering gender equality, but gender equality has been debated since the mid-1980s only to stall again and again. If the Abe government really had gender equality as an aim then key barriers both in society and in the workplace would need to be challenged and overcome. Herein lies the crux of the policy known as womenomics that is being prescribed for Japan by Matsui and loosely translated by the Abe government. In sum, the womenomics being prescribed for Japan assumes an implicit gender bias: the assumption that core male employment is normative. Moreover, womenomics will have only limited success at best because it is focused on women. In order to really deliver employment equality, womenomics needs to include men too.

The gendered life cycle of work in Japan

Japan’s post-war employment system is well-known for being distinctly gendered, and has been described as having a “gender fault line”.6 The system is founded on the male breadwinner model, with men primarily responsible for productive roles and women for reproductive roles within the family unit and more broadly in society. At its core, this division of labour is premised on harnessing the strong commitment of a core male workforce with stable employment while making use of a supporting non-regular workforce which has increasingly comprised female workers. While the male breadwinner model was certainly not unique to Japan in the early post-war years, its persistence as an ideology over time is striking, particularly when comparing employment practices with that in other advanced nations. Even though the reality of this model has been much debated – with the acknowledgement that at best only one third of the Japanese workforce has ever been within this core elite ‘lifetime’ system – this model continues to be held as an ‘ideal’ and is a pervasive force underpinning the political and institutional organisation of work. While acknowledging the increasingly precarious reality of work for both women and men in Japan, I will argue that an attachment to this male breadwinner model continues to impede any real progress toward gender equality, and that any solution to employment problems must go beyond Abe conceptions of womenomics and seek to break down gendered norms for both men and women in Japan.

About Us

APP is a Washington research center studying the U.S. policy relationship with Northeast Asia. We provide factual context and informed insight on Asian science, finance, politics, security, history, and public policy.